Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This petition is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate(HQ), Chandigarh exercising the powers of Collector(under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899) dated 29.07.2008(Annexure P-4) and the order of the Commissioner(Revenue), Union Territory, Chandigarh dismissing the statutory appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 09.08.2010.

In brief, the petitioner purchased 30% share of Show Room No. 17, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh total measuring 789.54 sq. yards with covered area of 4268 sq. ft. for a consideration of `2,02,00,000/-. The sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar for registration which was impounded by him on the ground that the market value of the property has not been duly set forth in the said documents. The impounded document was sent by the Sub Registrar to the Collector, who issued notice to the petitioner to which petitioner filed a reply alleging that the sale deed was executed on 8.08.2007 but prior thereto a similar property i.e. 30% share in SCO No. 1 of 7 21, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh was sold for `1,30,00,000/- vide vasika no. 3748 dated 28.01.2007. The petitioner has alleged that there is no deficiency in the stamp duty but the Collector vide his impugned order dated 29.07.2008(Annexure P-4) observed that since the collector rate was revised w.e.f 28.05.2002 and the sale deed was registered thereafter on 8.08.2007, therefore, revised collector rate were applicable to the commercial property in Sector 7-C, Chandigarh. Thus, the total value of the property comes to `12,42,35,240/-, the cost of 30% share comes to `3,72,70,572/- and Stamp duty @5% was to be charged which came to `18,63,528.60 p i.e. `18,63,600/- whereas the petitioners had paid the stamp duty of `10,10,000/- and thus, there was a deficiency of `8,53,600/- which was to be recovered from the petitioners.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be relevant to refer to Section 47(A) of the Act which is reproduced as under:-

"47-A.Instruments under-valued how to be dealt with:-
(1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument transferring any property has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the value or consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon.

matter of the instrument is situate, appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, within three years from the date of registration of any instrument, not already referred to him under sub-section(1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of its value or consideration, as the case may be, and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reasons to believe that the value or consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section(2); and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty:

Since the facts are not in dispute, therefore, the issue which is to be decided by this Court is as to whether the collector rate is final for the 4 of 7 purpose of adjudication in respect of payment of deficient stamp duty or the collector has to consider the evidence led by the purchaser for determining the actual price of the property purchased?
Section 47-A(1) of the Act provides that while registering any instrument relating to transfer of any property, if the registering officer has a reason to believe that the value of the property or consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument then he may after registration of the document, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the value of the property. The Collector then, on the receipt of reference under Section 47-A(1) of the Act is required to give the parties reasonable opportunity of hearing and then hold an inquiry in such a manner prescribed by rules and to determine the value or consideration of the duty liable to be paid.